Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936101AbcKWLpU (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 06:45:20 -0500 Received: from mail-wj0-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:36800 "EHLO mail-wj0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754330AbcKWLpS (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 06:45:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] VMX Capability MSRs To: David Matlack , kvm@vger.kernel.org References: <1479863680-117511-1-git-send-email-dmatlack@google.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmattson@google.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:45:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1479863680-117511-1-git-send-email-dmatlack@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1259 Lines: 34 On 23/11/2016 02:14, David Matlack wrote: > This patchset includes v2 of "KVM: nVMX: support restore of VMX capability > MSRs" (patch 1) as well as some additional related patches that came up > while preparing v2. > > Patches 2 and 3 make KVM's emulation of MSR_IA32_VMX_CR{0,4}_FIXED1 more > accurate. Patch 4 fixes a bug in emulated VM-entry that came up when > testing patches 2 and 3. > > Changes since v1: > * Support restoring less-capable versions of MSR_IA32_VMX_BASIC, > MSR_IA32_VMX_CR{0,4}_FIXED{0,1}. > * Include VMX_INS_OUTS in MSR_IA32_VMX_BASIC initial value. > > David Matlack (4): > KVM: nVMX: support restore of VMX capability MSRs > KVM: nVMX: fix checks on CR{0,4} during virtual VMX operation > KVM: nVMX: accurate emulation of MSR_IA32_CR{0,4}_FIXED1 > KVM: nVMX: load GUEST_EFER after GUEST_CR0 during emulated VM-entry > > arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h | 31 ++++ > arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 443 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 2 files changed, 421 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-) > The main question is whether patches 2-3 actually make vmx_restore_fixed0/1_msr unnecessary, otherwise looks great. It would be nice to have a testcase for patch 4, since it could go in independently. Paolo